— Theologica —

A STAMP VATICAN JOKER TO SEND AN MISSIVA THE QUESTION OF ECUMENICAL MASS

It is therefore necessary that the Church rejects the false ecumenism, of which we have here traced the contours, and instead of leading the separated brethren to the unit Cattolica, risks turning and grinding Catholic unity around Christ in a messy and chaotic jumble of separated brethren under the "prince of this world"

.

Author
Giovanni Cavalcoli, o.p.

.

PDF print format article
.

.

Giovanni Cavalcoli, o.p. pleasant uses this stamp to send the letter below … [see in Vatican Post, WHO]

The so-called ecumenical church, which we have been hearing about for some time, it is not clear expression, because it is not always clear whether it refers to a Mass compatible with ecumenism or a facile ritual, syncretistic, confusing and equivocal, thereby disabling same, illicit and wicked, that under the pretext of ecumenism, auspichi hybrid concelebration between Catholics and Lutherans.

.

The issue is very delicate, because the Mass is and realizes the summit of ecclesial communion, and the source and summit of the Christian life, to express ourselves with the Vatican Council II. And for this it is necessary that the celebrants, the concelebrants and the faithful who participate are in full communion with the Church, fully accepting the doctrine and the moral and legal discipline of the Catholic Church, something that many non-Catholic Christian brothers, in particular the Lutherans, of which we are concerned here now, They are still far from accepting. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council, in reforming the rite of Holy Mass, It gives it a ecumenical cut: without naturally suppress the sacrificial aspect. Then the Mass new world order It presents certain aspects, absent in the old order, that emphasize and resume the own aspects of the Lord's Supper Luther, as the convivial aspect: today we speak fluently of the "Eucharistic banquet" or the "Eucharistic syntax", as a memorial of the Last Supper.

.

Anyway, the understanding ecumenical church in the first of the meaning mentioned above, What it is completely legitimate and may well express just what the Council intended to do with the liturgical reform: close as possible to the new rite in what is valid in the Lutheran Lord's Supper. Indeed, the Council, in reforming the rite of Mass, It gives to it an ecumenical cutting: without naturally suppress the sacrificial aspect. But more than that the Council could not agree to Lutherans, without betraying the essential meaning of the Mass. Now it's up to the Lutherans approach the Catholic Mass, assuming those elements desired by Christ, Luther in his time left, believing to reform, when in fact only deformed.

.

The second conception of ecumenical Mass, instead, is that desired by the pro-Lutheran modernists, such as Andrea Grillo, which recently, denying in the Munera magazine that transubstantiation is a dogma [1], It claims that the Catholic and the Lutheran interpretation are two different possible interpretations and legitimate Eucharist, but neither can claim to be the only real condemning the other [see article, WHO], which he made it followed in a second clarification, WHO]. It is the classic method of the modernists, steeped in opportunism and duplicity, that, in the name of pluralism or ofupdating, in reference to a given step or judgment of Scripture, alongside the Catholic interpretation to another heretical, moreover, giving preference to this, while the other is called "outdated".

.

The Catholic-Lutheran Press

.

This important topic it emerges from Joint statement of the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity at the end of the year the Common Commemoration of the Reformation, the 31 October 2017. In it it is covertly expressed the wish that Catholics and Lutherans can celebrate together the Eucharist, overcoming existing divisions. It states: "With an eye toward the future, we are committed to continue our common journey, led by the Spirit of God, towards the growing unity desired by our Lord Jesus Christ. With the help of God and in a spirit of prayer, we intend to discern our interpretation of Church, Eucharist and Ministry, striving to achieve a substantial consensus in order to overcome the differences that are still a source of division between us ".

.

And how to "overcome differences still dividing sources»? The Council's Decree Reintegratio it clearly says: it is necessary that we Catholics, under the guidance of the Pope, father common Christian, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we help brothers Lutherans to take away those "obstacles" and "gaps", I'm still hinder full communion with the Catholic Church, so that they "are fully embedded" in it [n.3].

.

As for the program to "discern our interpretation of Church, Eucharist and Ministry, striving to achieve a substantial consensus ", in it are touched three points of the utmost importance, concerning the ultimate goal of ecumenism, as it is apparent from'reintegration of unity': that the Church, in her maternal care, by means of his ministers, calling all to submit to the sweet yoke of Christ, can get, with a patient, tireless and wise educational work, stimulating and corrective, assisted by the Holy Spirit and led by the Pope, who calls everyone to the fullness of Christian life, that those brethren who are not yet in full communion with her or have strayed, reach or come back to the fullness of communion, in the common celebration of the Eucharist and fraternal, gradually freeing himself from all obstacles and impediments that hinder the achievement of the noble goal.

.

The Church must be able to present to the Lutherans with an attractive face, so that they feel they have enticed to enter into it in that full communion which still they lack, because it achieves better than their ideals evangelical, that while they pursue, and it is free from those problems from which are afflicted. If we Catholics show pliable towards their flaws and almost admired them to, Lutherans will feel of the samples of Christianity, think of being on the side of reason and will refrain dall'accostarsi in Rome.

.

Undoubtedly Luther maintains the concept of Church, though at that time (church) prefers to "community" (community). They, at the beginning, when it was still a Catholic, He not aimed at breaking with the Church, but reform it; and some of his idea was too good. It is at the time of rupture with the Roman Pontiff, head of the Church, he fell into a wrong idea of ​​the Church, believing to reform it, so always he thought they had found the true essence of the Church, deformed, according to him, from the papacy, while the real de-trainer was him.

.

However, he retained some genuine elements of the Church. Thus the Church was for him the community of the baptized, in which he preaches the Gospel and administer the sacraments. It is the people of God led by Christ and the Holy Spirit. However, the ministers are not priests, but shepherds, employees to the cult and the leader of the community, and theologians-exegetes, masters of Sacred Scripture.

.

No apostolic succession and no ecclesiastical hierarchy, so no Papacy. Issues to be addressed, At that time, as mentions Press, It is the essence of ministry, which involves the concept of Church, because the essential difference between the Catholic concept of the Church and the Lutheran, It is precisely the fact that Lutheran ecclesiology lacks the priestly ministry, replaced by a purely functional office teacher, overseer or president Assemblyman, no weirdness; but this is a very serious gap, because there is no concept of a sacrament, missing the Magisterium and lacks the universal government of the Church, ie the papacy.

.

The misconception Lutheran sacrament, which rejects the nature of grace channel - ex-works operated ―, but he sees only as a visible sign of this grace, brings with it the defects and misery if not the squalor of the cult and the absence of sanctification and spiritual progress; the absence of teaching carries with it the uncertainty and doctrinal relativism, the ethical and doctrinal disorder, and the lack of apologetics and missionary momentum; the lack of the papacy, principle of moderation, Unit, harmony and plurality and true ecclesial development, It produces a systematic conflict intra-ecclesial, the violence of controversy, the opposite extremes, the mania of change and the intolerance for tradition, the proliferation of sects and dependence on political power.

.

But the most profound contrast between the Catholic and the Lutheran ecclesiology It has its source first in the contrast on the concept of the Eucharist, and then in Lutheran denial of the mystery of transubstantiation. Because of this denial the Lutheran Community is reduced to nothing more than a simple disciples of Christ now. Instead, the true Church is supernatural communion of persons, which originates, climax, foundation and raison d'être from the Eucharistic communion and the Eucharistic celebration. ln this sense, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. It is significant that Luther is entirely missing the ecclesiology of the Mystical Body.

.

The Catholic Mass and the Lutheran Dinner

.

For us Catholics, the Mass is not only a memorial, but also sacrifice. This aspect is missing in the Lutheran Dinner, because Luther refused to connect the Dinner with the Sacrifice of the Cross, because it thought that this was sufficient for the remission of sins, without adding human works, which he was believed to be the Mass.

.

We Catholics have always responded to the Lutherans that the Mass that Christ has commanded us to celebrate - "do this in memory of Me" -, It does not pretend to add absolutely nothing to the infinite value and more than enough of the sacrifice of the Lord, because it would be really, as Luther believes, absurdity and impiety, but is only a sacramental participation, willed by Christ Himself, its unique divine Sacrifice, which extends and applies the strength and effectiveness in space and time, until the end of time. But unfortunately that ear Lutherans do not feel there.

.

However, it is comforting to the common faith of Catholics with Lutherans in this memorial of the Lord's Supper occurs mystically, but really the active presence and comforting the crucified and risen Christ and his Spirit in the community formed by the priestly people, in which the minister who presides at the celebration, after reading and discussion of the Word, which confirms the divine promises and feeds the hope, repeating the words of the Lord, He recognizes together with the community and the active presence of the Spirit communities, of grace, forgiveness and mercy of God for his people in prayer and on the way to the resurrection.

.

However, Lutheran denial the memorial of the Supper is also priestly sacrifice, riattualizzante so the bloodless sacrifice of the Cross for the remission of sins and the purchase of eternal life, It is a serious disobedience and exception to the will of Christ, why in the Supper Christ instituted the priesthood just as the power to say Mass, ie Transcendent bread into the body and the wine into blood, precisely to offer them in sacrifice to the Father, in order to compensate for the offense of sin and obtain mercy.

.

It is clear then that priesthood, Mass and transubstantiation a sin offering and reconciliation, They are an inseparable plexus and logically related values, for which the refusal or at least insufficient loyalty that Luther has opposite thereto have meant that on these important points he has reformed, but destroyed.

.

The interpretation of the words of the Lord

.

The fact the Real Presence, it is true that Luther admits, also strongly against the symbolism of Zwingli and Calvin, but it not fully intends to mean that Christ wanted. This presence is in fact not only spiritual, but also substantial and material, because a human body is composed of matter. Now there is the Eucharist real body of the Lord, in substance so. And the bodily substance is material, although certainly not the exact same matter of the body of Jesus in heaven, but it is a way to be the subject.

.

This presence among us, mysterious but real, the subject of Christ's Eucharistic Body, It is saved in the dogma of transubstantiation, Why, in the words of consecration, the substance of the bread is changed into the body of the substance of the Lord. Whereby, when we do the Communion, we really "eat his flesh", matter of his real body, combined with the divinity of the Lord. Here it is appropriate to talk, in the words of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the "holy matter", material saving, eschatological and immortal, what will be one of our resurrected body. Here then is the saying of St. Augustine: «Blinded thee? Dear you leveler». And Santa Caterina: "" My lips are red of the same blood of Christ ".

.

Instead, in "impanation» Lutheran, that is, "Christ in the bread ', or as well as is usually called, "Consustanziazione", ie the substance of the bread along with the substance of Christ's body, You do not see how it can save the sense of the term neutral "this" [hoc, tuto] for "this is my body", which clearly indicates one substance, or transubstantiation in progress, the time in which it is taking place, ie the transition from the substance of the bread to the substance of the body. At the end of the process transustanziatorio, the altar there is no more bread, but there is one body of Jesus. If it were true instead the thesis of Luther, Jesus would have to say: "I'm coming into this bread".

.

To say that Christ is in the bread, albeit with his grace in celebrating community, says nothing special, but simply sets out the principle of natural theology that God is in all things and in all souls in grace, although not involved in the Supper or Mass. To say that it is a special presence in the bread in the wine is still not enough, as we have seen, to explain the words of the Lord.

.

Of course, after the consecration we continue to see or to feel physically sensitive aspects of the bread and wine, those who are called in philosophy damn it and liturgy are called species. But we know by faith in Christ's words that, after the consecration, what appears bread, It is not bread. It's not that, properly, the senses are deceived: they see objectively true damn it.

.

It is our reason that, used to know that under the accidents of bread is the bread, alone, if it was not informed by faith, It would never imagine that it can happen that the accidents exist without their substance, metaphysically though it is not impossible, because among them there is a real distinction and thus separability, so in this case, by itself, although substance and accidents make up a single thing, one can exist without the other, although they still need an ontological support, replacing their natural substance, and in the case of the Eucharist, God Himself, That being miraculously supports the Eucharistic species, until their corruption, when Christ's presence is less and returns the substance, but once this corrupt, some bread.

.

Another interpretation of the words of Christ, which perhaps it could be traced Lutheran, But this absurd time, is the following: "I am the bread". In reality, We can not preach a substance to another substance. I can not say: "Paul is Peter", no. Paul is Paul and Peter is Peter. The substance or the person can not be preached, but it is only one subject.

.

The thesis Manuel Belli and Father Timothy Radcliffe

.

We discuss now a recent interpretation of the Eucharist proposed by Manuel Belli, the guest 17 Last January in the journal by Andrea Grillo gifts. Belli summarizes his remarks into three themes: the eucharist connection with the embodiment, the one with the meal and the one with sexuality [see article, WHO].

.

In the first consideration Belli supports the view that after the consecration the bread is no longer bread, but the body of the Lord, He thought it would be a "semi-magic". Instead, According to him, as Calvino, the bread remains bread, and it becomes only a "symbol" of the Lord's Body. Vice versa, It must say firmly that the believer's assume that after the consecration the bread is no longer bread, but the body of the Lord, It is not "magical thinking", but it is the substance of the Eucharistic faith.

.

considerations semi-magical They would be supposed from what Belli is to say to the believer. Says Belli:

.

"The Catholic tradition uses the" transubstantiation "to express the notion that the bread and wine are no longer such, but they have become the body and blood of the Lord. But we would like to stick to a level of observation: it is not difficult wrecked in semi-magical considerations: "The priest says this is my body; I do not see no body and no touch but only the bread and wine; let us take it for good!».

.

I note that here confuses Belli first of all the believer col unbeliever. Here he probably believed to express the consideration of the believer. In reality it is what sees the non-believer. In fact, the believer says: I see the accidents of bread and wine, but I do not see the substance, because I know that in those accidents there is the body of the substance and the blood of the Lord.

.

Secondly Belli, in addition to denying Here the mystery of transubstantiation, confuses wickedly and profanely the miraculous operation produced by the words of the consecration with a magical operation, demonstrating a horrible confusion between the divine action of transubstantiation and the magical operation, which it is a miracle - this second - which is the case with the Demon competition. Indeed, which it consists in the miracle of transubstantiation? In fact that God, in order to nourish the souls of grace food, He does exist the accidents of bread and wine without their substance, something quite superior to the natural law, he wants that accidents are always soggettati in their substance. Vice versa, the magical operation, which in itself is a mortal sin of superstition, consists in the fact that the wizard, by means of an implicit or explicit pact with the Devil, It operates prodigious effects, but in the natural accounts, using secret laws of nature, in order to damage the next. If true the Eucharistic consecration what it says Belli, Mass would not be true Mass, but satanic ritual.

.

Is not it, says Belli that, before or after the consecration, "Senses see only bread and wine" ". It is not so. Not the senses, but the intellect sees and understands the substance of things; the senses feel only the accidents of bread and wine. It is true that if the senses warn me of the bread and wine accidents, Normally I expect my intellect will grasp the substance. But in the case of the Eucharist, I know by faith believing that these accidents do not hide their substance, but the substance of the body and blood of the Lord. Unlike the case of the non-believer. He only has the natural power of knowing (senses and intellect), but it lacks the light of faith. Because of this, they, looking at the consecrated Host, It is not able to know how to see only the accidents of bread, but he thinks he sees also the substance of the bread, namely the bread itself, because it lacks faith, he would know that instead under those accidents there is the body of the Lord. Believing, therefore, that after the consecration of the bread remains bread, denotes a substantial lack of faith in the Eucharist. For Belli, instead, the consecrated bread is nothing but bread, But you remember, track, relic and a symbol of the Lord's Body. According to him the Eucharist secret lies not in believing that under the species of bread is the body of the Lord, thought, this, it would be magic, but in seeing that bread remains bread, the symbol of the Lord's Body. In fact, says:

.

"In this perspective, the celebration of Mass is not only a kind of inexplicable magic that is present the body of divinity. It all depends on how you look at that bread. It is all that we have the body of Jesus, and not cheap. Only an empty intellectualism would think that a symbol is actually just a series B. We live by symbols. And the body of Jesus is nothing more than a good bread broken. And the body of Jesus is nothing more than a good bread broken ".

.

Second Belli offers the Eucharist as a "meal". Unfortunately Belli on the wrong foot, ie with a false or at least insufficient definition of the Mass: "The Mass is a ritualized meal. A Mass first of all you eat ". Absolutely not. A first Mass the celebrant, in union with the people, Dio Padre offre, in the Holy Spirit, the divine sacrifice of the body and blood of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins.

.

The Mass certainly ends, if we are worthy, and if we are ready, with the Holy Eucharistic Communion with Christ and with the Church, that is granted thanks to the sacrifice of Christ on the altar reactivated by the celebrant. The Mass is therefore not only "eat", but is first and foremost offer, to listen, obtained, supplicating, ask and give forgiveness, praise, glorifying, to worship, contemplate, be silent, to thank. The eating and the shouting leave them to the taverns and Hermes Ronchi [see our previous articles, WHO, WHO].

.

The holy Mass, it may be compared to a feast, It is certainly ritual memory Last Supper, It must never be approved in all respects, SIC et simpliciter, this memory. It's this one, the heresy of Luther, We remember that it is not a "precious diversity", as we have heard repeatedly call recently, but it is a serious heresy. For this is completely incongruous, however enticing, The lecture made by liturgists dishonest, who observed that he would not make sense to sit at the table at a banquet without eating, as if to suggest that it would be pointless to go to Mass without receiving communion. The obsessive insistence with which some claim at any cost that Communion is granted to divorced and remarried, It depends on this concept fetishistic Communion. But that's the point: that the Mass is not primarily a feast, but a religious sacrifice and worship. The essentials of the Mass is clearly indicated by the following recommendations of Saint Peter in his First Letter. Addressing the faithful, for he says:

.

"Turn to Him, living stone, rejected by men, but chosen and precious to God, Ye also, as lively stones,, for the construction of a spiritual building, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ " (The Pt 2, 4-5].

.

It is true, however, as it adds Belli:

.

"When we take food or when we do not take, We are in one way or another telling us, of our lives, meaning that we see or we can scarcely see. A Mass will not eat much, but what you eat should have a nourishing. What we give the power to satiate our existence? Sit at the table of the Eucharist requires you to answer honestly the question about what we are really looking for in our existence ".

.

The location, shape and arrangement of the altar of the Mass new world order reflects a biblical wise criterion, for which the call to sacrifice happily is synthesized with the image of a banquet. It's not just the altar only altar the old order, but neither is the board of tavern of certain liturgists sbracati, eager to be admitted to the famous Price Lutheran. But nevertheless Belli loses again share with scams dialectical following:

.

"In the Middle Ages they were codified the fundamental precepts of the Church, including the go to Mass at least on Sundays. The risk is that in the story have become 'it takes' to say he has faith, even something to offer to God. The reversal would be consumed: by the invitation to sit at the table where God offers, the Eucharist would become what we owe to God '.

.

First, it is false that the Mass Sunday festive, Memory of the Resurrection of the Lord, It was established in the Middle Ages, while it has been reported since the Acts of the Apostles [At 2,42; 20,7], by Barnabas and Saint Ignatius of Antioch in the second century. In second place, Mass is exactly, pace of Luther, "something to offer to God", and none other than Christ Himself to the Father, immolated on the cross for the priest's hands, while Paul invites the faithful to join the offering of the priest:

.

"I urge you, siblings, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God; which it is your spiritual worship " [RM 12,1].

.

Moreover divine worship must be voluntary yes and possibly attractive, pleasant and joyful; in this beautiful liturgy and sacred art play an important role; but remember that - and we are always there - not so much to join a good meal among cronies, but rather to fulfill a strict duty of justice - have cost the blood of Christ – to the Father, to repair our faults and to compensate in Christ for the offense of sin, sdebitarci for our sins and then to unite, to this end, the atoning sacrifice on the cross.

.

The certain joy befitting the celebration of the Eucharist. God does not want the musoni, but appreciates a cheerful giver [cf. II Cor 9,7]. However, remember that if the Holy Mass is the memory of the Resurrection of Christ and pledge of our, more root is memory and participation of the Cross, that leads to the Resurrection. Through the cross to the light. Instead, a thought of useful and interesting Belli is as follows:

.

"The body of Christ what to do with my desire? What I want to happen when I sit down at the table of the Eucharist? If we want to meet God, then this table will have a satiating power. If we want without him, and we are satisfied with a good sermon fun, rather than an emotionally involving singing or a particularly extravagant gesture, sooner or later we will participate Eucharist hungry, and it will be a practice that does not tell us much. It should be a little 'mystics in order to live the Eucharist ".

.

In the end, the Eucharist as "eros", and here there are further doubts. The term eros to designate the Eucharistic mystique is totally unhappy, misleading and unsuitable, because it corresponds to a concept charged love understood as unrestrained sexual craving, a term that does not even exist in Scripture, so l 'eros repugnant sacred author, but to which eros It corresponds Testament yadàd, hafesh, and in the New Testament "lust" [epithymia: GC 1,14; Pt II 1,4; The Gv 2,16; RM 7,7]. The healthy concept of love instead, goodwill, it is expressed, in Ancient Testament with Ahab, ahabhah, raham and in the New Testament the term agàpe O filia. Of course the Bible has nothing against sexual love in himself, what a fact they are blessed in marriage. However it is realistically aware that the fallen nature stimulates the sexual instinct to sin.

.

Sexual love, In the Song of Songs rises to various mystical meanings: the union of Israel with their God, the union of the Church or the Virgin or of the soul with Christ. Clear, instead, citing the words of the Father Timothy Radcliffe, sexual union would like to find a symbolic function also to signify the mystical value of the Eucharist. Belli pressed then to quote the words of consecration of Radcliffe: "Take, this is my body ", Review and:

.

"It is a phrase, that no difficulty could be contextualized in what a man says to his wife, or vice versa. Write T. Radcliffe: "I would like to mention the Last Supper and sexuality. It may seem a bit 'strange, But think for a moment. The Last Supper, the central words were: “This is my body, offered for you ". The Eucharist, like sex, It is centered on the gift of the body. Have you ever noticed that the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians moves between two themes, sexuality and the Eucharist? This is so because Paul knows that we need to understand one o'clock in the light of the other. We understand the Eucharist in the light of sexuality and sexuality in the light of the Eucharist ' ".

.

Continue Belli commenting Radcliffe:

.

"So there is an erotic component of the Eucharist which should not be overlooked. Between two lovers there is a body of code that exceeds the word order. Donating body means trusting the other person who can rely on a fidelity that words are not always able to express. There are times and moments where even the words could be a source of misunderstanding: the mutual gift of the body expresses that the other is for me beyond the understanding now that I could have from a verbal or intellectually ".

.
It should be noted very clearly some things. Before: It is not true, as would have us believe Radcliffe, Saint Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians connects the Eucharist with sexual love. In this letter the Apostle speaks of marriage but [cf. c.7] and the Eucharist [cf. 11, 23-29], but separately and together with many other topics, such as Christian wisdom, [cf. cc.1-2]; the function of the preacher [cf. cc.3-4]; a case of incest [cf. c.5]; the appeal to the pagan courts [cf. c.6]; virginity [cf. c.7], the problem of idolotiti [cf. cc.8-9]; lessons from the history of Israel [cf. c.10]; women's clothing, [cf. c.11]; gifts of the Spirit [cf. cc.12-14]; the resurrection [cf. c.15].

.

The Radcliffe builds his mystical Eucharist on a false foundation. Secondly, it must be said that the approach that he makes between the Eucharist and sexual union is totally foreign to Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church. Thirdly, It is a forced juxtaposition, unseemly and sacrilegious, because the gift that Christ makes of his body in the Mass It has absolutely nothing to do with the mutual gift of self that occurs in the conjugal union - as it would like to support Radcliffe -, because Christ in the Eucharist is not given in this way, but only come food.

.

The aberrant speeches by Andrea Grillo.

.

On this delicate issue, during these last two months, Andrea Grillo has intervened three times in the European Cultural Magazine, with misleading speeches, that hide the attempt to relativize the dogma of the real presence of Christ on the altar, after the consecration of bread and wine. This unfair and devious operation clearly betrays the project wicked, carried out by some supporters of so-called inauspicious ecumenical church, to create an unholy mess of Catholicism and Lutheranism, that Rome will never accept. Indeed, Grillo would give us to drink that what happens on the altar after the consecration of bread and wine, It is simply an indeterminate or undefined Real presence, without further explanation or clarification. So we do not know in what sense this Real presence and who or what it is Real presence. And Grillo is vague on purpose - not very good gimmick -, because he knows very well that, if clarify, would discover the cards and appear in full light the trap in which he would have us fall.

.

We explain therefore its proceedings. First of all, they, with incredible effrontery, against the explicit teaching of the Council of Trent [cf. Denz. 1642], It denies that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a dogma. He says this in his article real presence and transubstantiation: conjectures and clarifications, released 17 last December in his blog European Cultural Magazine. [cf. WHO]. In fact, says: «Transubstantiatio is not a dogma, and as an explanation has its limits. For example contradicts the metaphysical ". This statement of mine, in its brevity, It does not in any way deny that the Eucharist realizes the presence of the Lord in his Church, but only he wants to distinguish dogma fidei - ie the affirmation of the real presence - from his explanation in terms of transubstantiatio.

.

At this distinction leads to a long debate that especially in German theology - especially in J. Auer - it made it possible to accurately distinguish between "object of faith" and "theoretical justification of that object". At this same conclusion reached, among others, Also Giuseppe Colombo [cf. sacramental theology, Milan, Glossa, 1997], when he said that transubstantiation "is considered […] not a distinct truth from the real presence, in the sense of itself as a proper object and separate the Catholic faith; but simply as a possible explanation, but in any case not necessary, of the real presence ".

.

The Grillo error in all this sophistic argument It is to consider the dogma of transubstantiation like a simple, relative, possible and not mandatory "explanation of the real presence" without specifying what, whereas in reality, according to the dogma of the Council of Trent, transubstantiation is a miraculous, by virtue of which it takes the real presence, which it is not a vague and unspecified "real presence", as if it were an absolute self-enclosed, nor is the presence of Christ as such, but it is real and substantial presence of his body and blood under the species of bread and wine, though undoubtedly, to coincide, we also have the presence of his soul and his divinity.

.

To obtain a certain presence of Christ among us, there is no need of the Mass, just call on his name. But it is not his presence real, their Holy Mass, for which Christ is simply not present with his grace, in a spiritual and invisible manner, but it's really here and now on the altar under the species visible Bread and Wine, though his glorious body transcends space and time and we see the Lord not with the eyes of the body, but with those of faith.

.

The Real Presence, therefore, It is certainly the object of faith. But it is not primarily or exclusively the dogma content to believe, transubstantiation as if they stay out, almost optional with explanation and theological interpretation of the Real Presence, as if you could also choose another - apparent reference to "impanation" Luther -, while the real presence would be the only thing the subject of dogma. Not at all. The dogma to believe instead is that at the moment of the consecration takes place transubstantiation, which is the cause of God's real presence and not at all a simple and relative, human or metaphysical explanation of the real presence.

.

To about, We have to do Grillo another note grave: to deny, as he does, that the dogma of transubstantiation put into play metaphysics, It is simply foolish and denotes Grillo - who also is a person of undoubted intelligence and culture -, a frightening ignorance of metaphysical [2], since it is known from the time of Aristotle that the analog concepts of substance and accident are precisely fundamental concepts of metaphysics, known to the rest of the simple natural reason, on which the Church relies on the definition of the dogma of transubstantiation.

.

Very out of tune, Furthermore, and utterly foolish are the words with which Andrea Grillo, in a previous article, under the pretext of "broaden" the meaning of transubstantiation to its effects and its ritual context, orante, liturgical and ecclesial, instead it ends up support for enhancing those aspects, to put aside the consideration of transubstantiation, too "intellectual", when in fact the opposite is true throughout, being such devoted and affectionate regard their intellectual and inexhaustible source of existential faith of personal communion with Christ and the Church, Bread of eternal life and pledge of future life.

.

The Grillo fact makes the following argument, a more obscene other:

.

1. The concentration on the "substantial presence under the species' has profoundly distracted by other forms of presence of the Lord, in the Word, in prayer, in the assembly [cf.. SC 7];
2. The "substantial presence under the species' reduced the weight of the" ecclesial presence "of Christ's body, which remains the primary effect of the Eucharist;
3. The attention to the "substance" has led to a practice of the accidents that oscillates between indifference and ritualism, risking to lose the symbolic logic of ritual sequences;

.

We add these other indecencies, with their rebuttal, from the article The bell at the consecration and transubstantiation the 6 last November, always in European Cultural Magazine.[see article, WHO].

.

1. A substantial part of the last century theological doctrine realized that the "theology of transubstantiation", while preserving with great precision the "content" of the faith in a polemical context, He fails to safeguard the "form" and determines a progressive divorce between form and content, causing negative repercussions on the level of content strictly.

.

I answer. The "form" of the Mass rite, for Grillo, It would be the set of parts of the rite as a liturgical assembly in prayer, while the consecration would be "matter" or "content" of the Mass. Now, the opposite is true: is the consecration to be the form and the original center and creator of the Mass, the culmination and the summit of the celebration of the rite, although it is true that the celebration is in turn aimed to offer the holy sacrifice to the Father in Christ and in the Holy Spirit and to build community and ecclesial communion. The human material of the rite, which is formed, vivified, built, sanctified and spiritually and eucharistically shaped by consecration, is the same community of the faithful from celebrating.

.

2. The transformation of the Eucharistic rite replaced with "formula on the matter" - that is to say the words of consecration of bread and wine - the sequence 'prex / ritus "which consists of" anaphora Eucharist / Communion rite ". In this way, the centrality of the wide dynamic between prayer / sacrifice / communion has been replaced by the close relationship between the words of consecration and matter Eucharistic.

.

I answer. The traditionally given primacy of the moment of the consecration throughout the whole ritual, It has not "transformed" original nonexistent primacy - in the words of Grillo - the whole ritual ["shape"] the moment of the consecration ["matter"], but precisely it represents the centrality of the propulsive moment of transubstantiation, from which they radiate profluiscono abundant and healthy water, that flow from the altar and fertilizing, with their grace, the surrounding land [cf. This 47, 1-12], ie the community of the celebrant and the participant.

.

3. This transformation was marked by controversy over the Mass as "sacrifice / communion": having clearly separated the sacrificial dimension from that of communion - in response to the clear separation of the Lutheran communion sacrifice - we created the theoretical foundations for this isolation of the "consecration" not only from the "Eucharistic Prayer", but also by the "rite of communion".

.

I answer. The church, the Council of Trent and Vatican II has not "clearly separated", but closely linked to "the sacrificial dimension" with that of "communion", since transubstantiation, operated dl celebrant in persona Christi in the words of the Eucharistic consecration, has precisely as its own and immediate effect, to prepare the heavenly gift - Blessed Sacrament - to offer to the Father for the forgiveness of sins and the food of eternal life for the celebrant and the faithful.

.

It is true the other way. It is from the believer concentration, devoted and adoring of the mind and heart of the individual and the community in this most sacred mystery, gushing "other forms of presence of the Lord, in the Word, in prayer, in assembly "and is the fruition want in Holy Communion, you want in the Eucharistic, It comes the ecclesial presence of Christ's body, bloom higher feelings and suffering Christians, and the mind receives light and celestial energies, to make big business of charity, while the Eucharistic accidents, touching the mystical elements of the event, arouse the symbolic logic of ritual sequences.

.

It must be said, however,, vero ad onor, that the conclusion of Grillo, After the nonsense about transubstantiation, It is surprisingly voluntary; which, on one hand we are glad, the other leaves us greatly perplexed about his ability to reason coherently, since he would have to put in mutual exclusion, and not join two theses that to each other punches; all the while reiterating what cricket is still endowed with brilliant intelligence. He saith:

.

«To conclude: Transubstantiation is a term that historically has had the function of "safeguarding a" contained in the polemical context. This function must today be conjugated with a different instance, which is to retrieve the "most appropriate forms and rich" of that content. For this recovery the notion of transubstantiation appears not only as an ancient wealth, but also as a new poverty ".

.

A final consideration of a pastoral nature. Undoubtedly, you may wonder what sense can have Holy Communion to children, introduced by St. Pius X, considering the need to use, to explain the mystery, a word so unusual as transubstantiation and categories so abstract and philosophical, like that of substance e accident and things like, What they can understand of transubstantiation, though here fell even Luther, who also did not lack faith, intelligence and biblical culture. Well I will not dwell here on pedagogical indications, known to all of the children catechists. I'm just saying - and this should be obvious - it is not absolutely necessary to use or teach in any case, and with all the technical term with its metaphysical explanation. To understand this, enough to remember that the term was coined only in the Middle Ages and there was no need of that term, because even the Apostles at the Last Supper and the Church of the following centuries many had understood very well what, in that solemn occasion, Jesus had done and what to the Lord's command, the Apostles had the power to do. There are therefore suitable words and concepts to induced and simple minds, to let them understand, according to their intellectual capacity, thereby it is meant by the technical term. It would be enough, for example, say that after the consecration, those that were bread and wine, They are no longer bread and wine: these seem, but they are actually Jesus. What is essential is to understand and believe that the child it feeds the body of the Lord.

.

From all these considerations the conclusion is clear that acting together with brothers Lutherans in the Eucharistic celebration, as it seems to want an ecumenism senseless and blasphemous, of the canonical formulas identical, but giving them different meanings, false or opposing or without the word or concept to reality corresponds with or without the spiritual power necessary in everyone the concelebrants to give saving efficacy to the formulas, or without everyone orthodox believe what they say, it was not ecumenical agreement, would Eucharistic communion, it would not be saving experience, It would liturgy and divine worship, but attack the Eucharist, contravention of the will of Christ, offense to the Church's Tradition, gibberish, empty recitation, fiction, lie, misunderstanding, mistaken, impiety, sacrilege, profanation, tomfoolery, mutual teasing, horrible deceit between the most sacred and sublime moment of fraternal communion with God, perhaps with the gall to invoke the Holy Spirit. But then there is quite a risk that intervenes another spirit, contrary, wicked and deadly. You do not have the latter's name.

.

The mystery of transubstantiation, Source of Catholic piety

.

Messe aside these follies sacrilegious, Now we do a serious talk on the devout and loving gaze of faith, we must have, the mystery of transubstantiation, to which we want to invite the brothers Lutherans, It is the source and guarantee of abundant fruit in order appreciation of the mystery of ecclesial communion, as the summit and source of all personal and communal Christian life, main source of Christian piety, forming the minds and hearts of the Saints [3], as a sweet refreshment of their soul, driving them to a continuous spiritual progress and the greatest feats of charity.

.

The transubstantiation it is also the reason why the Church preserves the sacred species in the tabernacle for adoration. Indeed, this, until it becomes corrupt, They contain in themselves the Lord's body. Vice versa, the insufficiency of the Lutheran conception of the real presence is evidenced by the refusal of Eucharistic Lutheran, because according to Luther, the ritual of the Last Supper is a simple banquet, in which it makes sense to consume the entire meal. It's obvious, At that time, for Luther, given that the actual presence is the impanation, ie the presence of Christ in the bread to be eaten, ceased Dinner, It would not make sense to keep the bread, from which the rest of Christ has departed, having been present only in the Supper.

.

Because of this, Eucharist in the Catholic view, transubstantiation, involving the permanence of the Lord's presence under the Eucharistic species in the hosts eventually advanced after Mass, is another issue that Luther, under those conditions, do not place it, and the question of the place, ie the tabernacle, in which it retains the Blessed Sacrament.

.

Even in such a case one can express this fact or with a learned formulation or popular form. In popular language it can certainly say that Jesus is in the tabernacle, and it is the same Jesus who is now in heaven. Instead, if we want to express ourselves in order to respond to those who eventually were to ask how is it possible that Jesus in the tabernacle, if it is true that the body of Christ, besides being in itself in heaven, It is found in all the tabernacles of the world. Then, It should be noted that properly, in the tabernacle, there are only the sacred species of body. But the Eucharistic body of Christ is not contained in one place, because then it might not be in all places on earth. However, because under the species it is no body, for which the species and the presence of the substance to fashion body combine to form the consecrated host contained in pisside the tabernacle, in scholarly form one must say that in the ciborium there are only species as placed, while the body It is not placed. Instead, in popular form it can simply say that Jesus is in the tabernacle [4].

.

An ecumenism wandering in the fog

.

One thing that arouses amazement is the conduct of ecumenical activities of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity since its founding in the immediate post-council today. In fact, it pursues an opportunist line and inconclusive, which contrasts clearly with that indicated by wise and precise 'Reintegratio. The responsibility of this bad run is certainly the Cardinal Walter Kasper, theologian influenced by Hegelian historicism, who for many years he was head of pontifical that organism. But even now that the management is given a few years to Cardinal Kurt Koch, things do not change. my di that it is? It is obstinate and inconclusive, even harmful to persist in a number of mistakes and violations of the directives'reintegration of unity'. Let's make a list:

.

1. replacement of the paradigm "separation from the Church" with the paradigm "mutual separation". The birth of Lutheranism was not a mutual separation between the Church and Luther: Luther has separated from the church, but the Church has separated from Luther, and said this must be remembered that the true Church of Christ a, are not multiple ;
2. Attention exclusively to charity and provision of the problem of truth. Instead the ecumenical problem is basically a problem of truth. Luther himself was opposed to the Roman Pontiff not so much for reasons of moral reform, but rather because he thought he had rediscovered Rome against the truth of the Gospel;
3. Failure to distinguish between full and imperfect communion communion. The Lutherans have to go from an imperfect communion with perfect communion;
4. Silence on the need for Protestants remove barriers to full communion with the Church. But this is one of the essential tasks of ecumenism;
5. Replacing the 'reunification' category, as if the Church a was divided - the image of the broken vase - the category of the way of Protestants towards Catholic unity according to the paradigm of the parable of the prodigal son;
6. Marginalization of the following statement Reintegratio: "Only through the Catholic Church of Christ, which it is the universal help toward salvation, you can get all the fullness of the means of salvation. In fact the only Apostles with Peter as its head we believe that the Lord has entrusted everyone the assets of the New Covenant, to form the one Body of Christ on earth, which should be fully incorporated who have in some way belong to the people of God " [cf. n. 3].
7. Because it is silent about the superiority of Catholicism to Lutheranism and on Luther's errors, Catholic faith and Lutheran faith are considered by many to be two different ways, mutually complementary and at the same level, equally legitimate, to conceive the Christian faith;
8. speaking generically of "divisions" is not enough. It should be specified what these divisions, if you actually want to remedy them. The always remain vague and never lay their cards on the table, is useless. We must not tire of reminding the brothers Lutherans, albeit in a more reasoned way, charitable and evangelical, As the church is doing for five hundred years, what are the errors that they must abandon, without losing hope of convincing them. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, "The truth is invincible '. Sooner or later triumphs. According to St. Paul, Jews welcome Jesus as the Messiah at the end of the world.

.

For this relativism or surf vague or fish in troubled waters, Today many parts no longer speak of faith, but of "faiths". There is not one fides, but more faiths, as if it were of different opinions, none of which can claim to truth and certainty, excluding the false. Everyone cultivates his backyard. What the Catholic "false" appears in the Lutheran, is simply a "different" and vice versa. In this way the Catholic, feeling entitled to choose between Catholicism and Lutheranism, It can be pushed to opt for this, having an ethics easier and permissive, with the assured salvation and sin always forgiven, while the Lutheran, not feeling corrected by the Catholic, It is brought to remain in their own errors.

.

Then there is the Catholic who defends openly the heresies of Luther, continuing to be considered and to be considered a Catholic and indeed advanced, progressive e reconcile. The conversions to Catholicism Lutherans have become rare, and certain priests or bishops unwise even go so far as to advise against. Other Catholics advanced or if we prefer grown ups, They assure us that recent studies have found that the condemnations of Luther uttered by the Council of Trent are no longer relevant or are the result of misunderstandings or, as S.E.. Mons. Nunzio Galantine, of 'prejudices'.

.

Some other examples of contravention of the directives'Reintegratio. We find on the site Week news the 30 Last October unsigned article: "Reform. But differences remain ', the following considerations:

.

"From the Catholic point of view, the purpose of all the dialogues must be ultimately "full visible unity". This does not mean that Protestants should simply give up all their traditions and rituals and enter the Catholic Church. But it means that Catholics and Protestants form, also from an institutional point of view, a church. However, it remains open speech, even by Catholic, on how in practice a unit of this kind should be declined. It is still valid that said the Ecumenical Bishop Feige in German Gehrard 2014: today in ecumenism we still not clear how un'dea full unity can manifest concretely visible. However, it is obvious that unit does not simply mean uniformity. On the part of the Protestants in the past years it has preferred to speak repeatedly of "difference reconciled", to describe the purpose of ecumenical dialogue. Such a unit would be conceivable even without a visible unity " [cf. item, WHO].

.

Some observations.

.

1. Please note: We need the full visible unity in full communion with the Catholic Church. Protestants do not give up at all those values ​​that already link them to the Catholic Church, but only - and it is quite understandable - those deficiencies and impediments, ie errors and heresies, which are obstacles to full communion.
2. Says the article: "Catholics and Protestants form, also from an institutional point of view, a church". This is not exactly the case: Protestants are indeed in the Church, but not in full communion with it, as are Catholics, that the Church in full and perfect way is only the Catholic Church. For Protestants, to be in full communion with the Church, missing catholicity.
3. "However, it remains open speech, even by Catholic, on how in practice a unit of this kind should be declined ". The answer would be easy, if consultasse theReintegratio I did exposition.
4. "It's always good what he told the German Ecumenical Bishop Feige in Gehrard 2014: ecumenism today we have not a clear idea of ​​how the full visible unity can manifest concretely ". In no way. You Feige has no clear idea. The thing is very simple: the brothers Lutherans, embracing the Catholic profession of faith, enter into full communion with Rome.
5. "However, it is obvious that unit does not simply mean uniformity". If by 'uniformity' means the common acceptance of the truth of the Catholic faith, it is obvious that it is necessary uniformity: a fides. If this uniformity it is to be extended beyond this boundary, where instead there is freedom of opinion and theological pluralism, it would fall nell'uniformismo, which it is not the environment of the Catholic Church, but of political or religious dictatorships.
6. "On the part of the Protestants in the past years it has preferred to speak repeatedly of" difference reconciled ", to describe the purpose of ecumenical dialogue. Such a unit would be conceivable even without a visible unity ".

.

I reply that the underlying problem of ecumenism It is not to reconcile differences and diversities: Here there is nothing to reconcile, because they are in their essence in harmony with each other. So here it is simply enriching values ​​to recognize and respect. As for the visible unity, it is the normal expression of faith and compulsory, which certainly it is in the heart, but it must be proclaimed with his lips.

.

The ecumenical problem is rather that of the persistence of brothers, roaming around the truths of faith and they are inclined to have a hostile attitude towards the Catholic Church, "The pillar and bulwark of the truth" [The Tm 3,15], with which they are not in full communion. Reconciliation presupposes the common acceptance of the truth. Between true and false there can be no reconciliation. The false is the principle of division and hostility; It is the true principle of unity and conciliation.

.

Ecumenism is certainly a blessing in itself given to the Church and of our separated brethren with Vatican II. But it, to bring the benefits it promises, It must be understood and put into practice in the precise sense indicated by the Council, ie substantially as the Church's appeal to his children scattered in misfortunes and tragedies of this world to return to the Mother friendly, caring and generous, from which have strayed, believing to seek freedom and happiness that they have not found.

.

It is therefore necessary that the Church rejects the false ecumenism, of which we have here traced the contours, and instead of leading the separated brethren to Catholic unity, risks turning and grinding Catholic unity around Christ in a messy and chaotic jumble of separated brethren under the "prince of this world".

.

"How to go astray from God, return with tenfold zeal to seek him, so long as, who afflicted you with so many calamities, It will also give, with salvation, everlasting joy ' [Bar 4 28-29].

.

Varazze, 12 February 2018

.

.

________________

NOTE

[1] What completely false, as it is clear from the definition of the Council of Trent against Luther: Denz.1642, teaching reiterated by the encyclical The Mystery of the Faith of Blessed Paul VI 1965, nn.24-25 and Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.1376.

[2] Poor European culture!

[3] One example among many that could be adduced, we find in the fiery words of the Venerable Father Giocondo Pio Lorgna, Dominican (1870-1928), uses to express his intense devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. Cf. my article P.Lorgna: priesthood, Eucharist and life, in sacred Doctrine, 6,nov.1988, especially pp. 710-714.

[4] Good analysis and theological explanation of how the Eucharist can and should speak of the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament to the place, cf Lessons on the Eucharist held by the Servant of God Father Tomas Site arpato.org.

.

.

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:

or you can use the bank account:
They were IT 08 (J) 02008 32974 001436620930
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanks [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]

.

.

.

.

.

.